Tribal administration — Panchsheel, Schedules, PESA, Xaxa

Nehru & Roy Burman

Integration after Independence

Post-1950 administration chose protected integration—constitutional schedules plus development machinery.

• Policy triangle revisited: isolation (museumisation risk), assimilation (cultural erasure risk), integration with protection (Nehruvian line).
• Nehru’s tribal Panchsheel: develop along their genius; respect land/forest rights; build local cadres; avoid over-administration; judge by human character not money spent.
• B.K. Roy Burman’s buffer-zone idea: protect vulnerable communities with graduated contact zones rather than abrupt market exposure.

Fifth and Sixth Schedules

• Fifth Schedule (Art. 244(1)): Scheduled Areas in states other than the Sixth Schedule belt; Tribes Advisory Council; Governor’s special responsibilities and regulation power.
• Issues (Bhuria/Xaxa): weak TAC voice, discretionary Governor role, incomplete notification, and development agencies bypassing gram sabha spirit.
• Sixth Schedule (Arts. 244(2), 275): Autonomous District/Regional Councils in specified NE areas—law-making on land, forests (non-reserved), shifting cultivation, village administration, etc.
• Sixth Schedule issues: fund delays, insider–outsider tensions, non-coverage of all tribal areas, and need for institutional reform (Xaxa).

PESA and Xaxa notes

• PESA (1996) extends Part IX to Scheduled Areas with gram sabha competence over custom, resources, land alienation safeguards and minor forest produce—on paper.
• Problems: incomplete state conformity rules, bureaucratic capture, unclear ownership of MFP, and weak women’s effective voice despite formal inclusion.
• Xaxa Committee: strengthen gram sabha, fix land alienation, align mining/forest clearances with consent norms, and repair Schedule/PESA implementation gaps.
• Link to tribal-policy-debate page: Elwin/Ghurye/Nehru arguments become constitutional technique in Schedules and PESA.